Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

View Post [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: May 24, 2006 9:54am
Forum: etree Subject: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

A number of artists have special requirements when letting us archive their material. In some cases they are concerned with quality issues, in other cases with overlap with commercial releases, or other personal reasons.

A few categories:
1) Prior OK from or upload through an artist representative. The artist may want to screen for quality, or may be testing out a "noncommercial exposure model" with selected material only. Examples: The Motet, Speaking in Tongues, Circadian, Lake Trout, Big in Japan, Antibalas Afrobeat Orchestra, Club d'Elf, Juggling Suns, Tristan Prettyman, Whogasta, Pepper, Slightly Stoopid, Zwan, Vanessa Carlton, Brown Couch, Miocene, DaveOsoffandMosaic, Disco Biscuits, Guy Malone, Kevn Kinney...

2) Soundboard recordings restricted. Some artists have asked for Audience (AUD) recordings only, or some SBDs off-limits. Examples: Jack Johnson, Glen Phillips, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, moe., Steve Kimock Band, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Zwan...

3) Dates off-limits when same as commercial releases, or being considered for future releases. Fans, please check on what dates are covered yourselves as you are most familiar with the artist's material. Volunteer Curators do their best to screen, but are not omniscient. If the Archive is caught in an error, an artist may withdraw hosting permission. Examples: Eddie From Ohio; bands that use Phish's former "audio repositories" policy as a model, such as Rane, Disco Biscuits; Garaj Mahal (specific GM recordings of a few dates), Glen Phillips, Little Feat, Jump Little Children, King Hippo, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Jason Mraz, Tea Leaf Green...

I may modify or follow up to this post as needed, but this will not be a complete list- some examples only. The most important thing is for folks to read up on the policy notes within any band's collection page here, before sending any uploads. Thanks!

Artists, if you are interested in inclusion here, we have some tips written for you:
http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php#115
http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php#131


Update 6/2005: To aid curators who approve shows, we've tagged each band that *does* have a limited policy with a one-line "Limited Flag" summary in the top line of the band's policy notes section. Here's what they mean:

ApproReq Band Approval Required for each recording
NotifyReq Band Notification Required for each recording
CopyReq Uploader must Mail Copy to Band
LimUp Limited Uploaders are allowed to upload shows
LimRange Limited Range of Dates allowed to be uploaded (opted-in or out)
LimShows Band has some Off Limits Shows opted-out (or expects to, see eg PhishPol)
PhishPol Off Limits Shows possibility specified in language that matches Phish's old Policy
LimSongs Limited Songs are allowed to be uploaded
NoMP3 No Lossy Files
NoSBD No Soundboard Recordings
LimSBD Certain Soundboard Recordings either allowed or disallowed
NoMatrix No Matrix Recordings (SBD/AUD mix)
LimMatrix Certain Matrix Recordings either allowed or disallowed
NoFOB No Front of Board Recordings
NoAUD No Audience Recordings
NoFM No FM Recordings
LimFM Certain FM Recordings either allowed or disallowed
NoStudio No Studio Recordings (typical of many bands, but added in case of special concern by rep)
NoSides No Side Projects (added in case of special concern)
LimProject aka Project- Uploads managed through an IA Project Team (eg, GDIAP)
LimSpecial aka Special- Rare special cases not fitting above

Update 5/18/2006: The underlying system of the LMA has changed, but bands' requests for limitations have not changed. *Please read any band's policy notes information before uploading any show.* In the case of particularly Limited bands, in coming days we will be attmepting to make the above quick reference flags more obvious on the bands' pages.

If anyone notices an oversight or mistake on any of those tags in the band sections, do email a correction to us, thanks!

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2006-05-24 16:54:16

Reply [edit]

Poster: jec3 Date: Dec 5, 2002 4:00am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Bands

> Some bands have asked for Audio recordings only.

Don't you mean "audience recordings only" ?

Thanks,

John

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 5, 2002 10:49pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Bands

D'oh, good catch, thanks! Fixed now

Reply [edit]

Poster: kwaved Date: Feb 8, 2003 8:28pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

Regarding Category 1 -- I believe there is an opportunity to automate this to some degree by utilizing db.etree.org sources in circulation as a farm system of sorts. Only seeds that are flagged as "approved" on db.etree.org would be permitted to be included in the archive.

For some artists I forsee the need for such a feature to ensure that certain quality standards are maintained for seeds included in archive.org, which is intended as a "museum of sound".

Rather than constantly reviewing already uploaded seeds for these standards, the process would take place in advance by whatever means necessary and seeds would need to be flagged as "approved" before they would ever make it to an archive server.

While this proposal will require a good deal of work on the part of etree admins and band archivists I believe there are bands out there that have the necessary resources and desire to implement such a process.

All that is needed are some minor (or so it would seem) code and data changes on both the db.etree.org and archive.org interfaces and databases.



This post was modified by kwaved on 2003-02-09 04:28:21

Reply [edit]

Poster: Tyler Date: Jan 17, 2004 4:02am
Forum: etree Subject: updated links

Hey diana, you said to post if we found broken links, and the following i think missed the update in the link-ages:

the following should be replaced with the direct band policy details page, as the majority of them are:

Club de Elf
Grandpa's Chilli
Toad the wet sproket (Just the link in the 'dates off limit' section. the SBD section has the right link)

the rest are great direct-to-the policy page links. Tasty!

also the Steve Kimock Band link is to a show:

http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=2329

when it should be direct to the band policy page:

http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-band-details.php?band_id=13

Right on. havea good weekend. i'm off to camp!

Tyler

This post was modified by Tyler on 2004-01-17 12:02:08

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Nov 26, 2004 2:59am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: updated links

Hey Tyler, a bit of a delay there but I think the links are fixed now. ;)

Reply [edit]

Poster: woj Date: Dec 31, 2006 5:35am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

would a NoSBD flag preclude radio broadcasts -- whether pre- or post-broadcast -- as well?

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 21, 2007 4:00pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

Often that is the case, especially for pre-FM copies.

Reply [edit]

Poster: dan Date: Nov 22, 2002 12:58am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Bands

maybe we can get a list of the band's shows that they dont want posted for commercial releases and block the shows from being uploaded? If this is possible I'd be happy to help. Wouldn't want to lose a band for one of our mistakes.
dan

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Jan 29, 2003 4:29am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Bands

I just added that item to the Feature Request list, thanks!

Reply [edit]

Poster: deadicated Date: Jan 24, 2004 4:55am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

I was interested to know about the status of artists like Miles Davis? Do we need to obtain permission from Columbia Records or are any works prior to 01.01.78 that did not contain a valid copyright notice considered public domain? (like a sbd reel) Sorry, if its an awkward question but I got some Miles I would like to upload. Thanks.


This post was modified by deadicated on 2004-01-24 12:42:49

This post was modified by deadicated on 2004-01-24 12:55:47

Reply [edit]

Poster: Tyler Date: Jan 24, 2004 9:09am
Forum: etree Subject: Old stuff -- miles davis?

I'm not sure. i think diana Hamilton would be the best to answer that one. Is there a 30 year clause or something on items entering the public domain? we should look into this, it would be cool to hear those old gems!

Reply [edit]

Poster: deadicated Date: Jan 24, 2004 12:32pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Old stuff -- miles davis?

"all works published before January 1, 1978 that did not contain a valid copyright notice may be considered to be in the public domain."

http://www.benedict.com/info/law/publicDomain/publicDomain.aspx

"The distribution before January 1, 1978, of a phonorecord shall not for any purpose constitute a publication of the musical work embodied therein"

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/303.html

Reply [edit]

Poster: Tyler Date: Jan 24, 2004 12:48pm
Forum: etree Subject: open source area maybe?

It seems like for these 'old' recordings perhaps you can put them legally in the open source audio section of the archive?

http://www.archive.org/audio/collection.php?collection=opensource_audio

where already existing are old old recordings, from the 78 rpm days of the 1920's. Check out the early southern blues and tunes from those past masters. really great stuff!

It seems that Columbia records really would never approve of the hosting of Miles Davis live stuff, but maybe the pre 1/1/78 fan recordings can go there? i guess others will have to rule on thie one.

Reply [edit]

Poster: deadicated Date: Jan 24, 2004 1:10pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: open source area maybe?

Does the Open Source Area include pending artists like Jerry Garcia..., have a coupla shows from 1962... Can I upload those shows in the Open Source Area?



This post was modified by deadicated on 2004-01-24 21:09:22

This post was modified by deadicated on 2004-01-24 21:10:27

Reply [edit]

Poster: simon c Date: Jan 24, 2004 2:01pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: open source area maybe?

I'm not 'in charge of' the Open-Source Audio area, though I do approve submissions as an admin sometimes, and have some (non-official!) opinions.

The way it's been working, up to now, is that submissions in that area are either:

- something the uploader has composed/created himself, so is allowed to post.
- something that the uploader says has fallen out of copyright, so is allowed to post. Right now, the only examples of these we have are the very old (1920s?) blues records, I think.

So, I think anything involving live recordings done by third parties should _generally_ still go in the Etree section. Posting things in Open-Source Audio because the artist hasn't been approved on Etree yet is probably not cool.

From my own very basic knowledge, music copyright is extremely complicated, and isn't simply pre-1978 recordings _or_ 75 years after the death of the creator. If something is a live recording, I don't think its copyrights are removed in any way, though.

s!

This post was modified by simon c on 2004-01-24 22:01:07

Reply [edit]

Poster: JodyC Date: Jan 30, 2006 5:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

I just your post from last week. Theres some old Miles & Coltrane over on dimeadozen from the 50's and 60's. Use the search, they're probably pretty far back.

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Jan 30, 2006 6:05am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

Heh Jody, speaking of pretty far back- that was last week 2 years ago. ;)

Reply [edit]

Poster: JodyC Date: Jan 30, 2006 6:11am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

I heard time flies when you get old, but I swear it was a 1/24 post. Yikes.

Reply [edit]

Poster: JodyC Date: Jan 31, 2006 9:03am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

Funny I just saw the 04. Oops.

Reply [edit]

Poster: deadicated Date: Jan 25, 2004 12:57am
Forum: etree Subject: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists


Thank you for your replies. I am fortunate enough to have been hooked up with a few classics and I just wanted to know what the parameters are for sharing them online. Not interested in breaking the rules and have the artists be pissed. I like music way too much for that type of approach.

From my understanding of this copyright legal crap, pre-01.01.78 is public domain and thats why artists like Beethoven and Bach receive no protection... and thats why blues from the 20s is allowed to be uploaded. Anything post 78 - the author of the work was given a 5 year period to provide an explicit copyright on the work.

It would be cool if someone could break this issue down to its nuts and bolts... especially this being a non-profit endeavor for academic research, scholarship and archival purposes which falls under the Fair Use clause of copyright law.

Just my dose sense. ;)

Reply [edit]

Poster: karmajh Date: May 11, 2004 2:48pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

As to this thread's discussion of copyright infringement; protection under copyright law is automatic, registration is not required.

So even if you don't see that little c in the circle, qualified works are protected against infringement on the premise that if somebody created it, somebody owns it.

To be protected, a work has to be "fixed in a durable medium" from which it can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated.

Copyrights are governed by the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended.

Works created after 01/01/1978 (yes 1978), are automatically given statutory copyright protection for the life of the author plus 70 years.

For works by more that one author (artist, songwriter, musician etc.), the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.

For copyrights owned by publishing houses, (this might also cover recording labels, somebody ought to check that out), the copyright expires 95 years from the date of publication, or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever is first.

deadicated makes this comment:
"It would be cool if someone could break this issue down to its nuts and bolts... especially this being a non-profit endeavor for academic research, scholarship and archival purposes which falls under the Fair Use clause of copyright law".

...and it's a good comment, but to have any validity in a court of law, you would have to show that unsubstantial proportions of each work are used, not entire songs.

..and that's all I know about THAT subject! :)

Karma J Hennebohl

Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.
- Will Rogers



This post was modified by karmajh on 2004-05-11 21:48:56

Reply [edit]

Poster: droncit Date: May 10, 2005 1:18am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploads Limited by Certain Artists

Yes - copyright law is very complex and even contradictory in certain respects. Most of the law applies to sanctioned recordings, I believe, and that makes it very difficult to assess the status of stealth recordings made during the 50s, 60s or 70s without the artist's permission (even if the artist is dead now). There are also all sorts of ways that a company may claim ownership. I have an audience recording of Pete Seeger from 1954, which is quite historic, and was made with his permission, and I asked him about distributing it through something like this or even through trades, but he was very concerned about the copyright issues if anything more than a handful of people had a copy. Not from his perspective, but from those who owned the songs he performed.